Lightroom 4 Review

Soft Proofing

Lightroom 4 includes long-awaited soft proofing functionality, providing an onscreen preview (the soft proof) of how your image will appear in print (the hard proof). The concept, if not the actual practice of soft proofing is rather straightforward. Monitors, by and large, are capable of displaying a wider dynamic range and color gamut than we can print. Simply put, there are image colors you can see onscreen that cannot be printed. If you can preview this mismatch before you print, you can make specific adjustments to the file destined for the printer to address these differences.

Previewing print output

In the Develop module go to View>Soft Proofing>Show Proof or use the keyboard shortcut (S) and your image is displayed in the main editing window surrounded by a 'white' background. In the soft proofing panel located just beneath the histogram, you can select any ICC profile that is installed in your system, choose between a Perceptual or Relative (colorimetric) rendering intent and immediately observe how these two parameters affect the contrast, saturation and brightness of your 'print' image.

Once an image is edited so that it looks perfect onscreen, checking the Soft Proofing box (outlined in red)...

...gives you a preview of how the image will appear in print. Lightroom offers a Create Proof Copy button (outlined in red). Clicking it creates a Virtual Copy so that edits you make in soft proofing mode do not alter your 'master' image.

In short, you are previewing the print output on your monitor. Checking the Simulate Paper & Ink box takes things to a more precise level of comparison. Instead of showing the white background as defined by your monitor (which will always be brighter and more neutral than printing paper), this option attempts to mimic the hue of the paper you've chosen via the ICC printer profile, applying it to the background and throughout the image area. The deep rich black of your monitor is similarly mapped throughout the image area to the relatively weaker tone of the ink/printer/paper combination specified in your selected ICC printer profile.

Output-specific editing

If all you could do was see just how much flatter and duller your print was going to look in comparison to what you see onscreen, soft proofing would be very depressing. Fortunately this is only the start. When you hit the Create Proof Copy button, Lightroom makes a virtual copy (VC), places it alongside your original image in the library and adds the profile name to the image's metadata (for easy searching).

With your VC created, selecting a before/after view automatically displays the soft proofing version (at bottom) alongside the original 'master' image (at top). You can see just how much contrast and saturation are lost by printing this vibrant image on, in this case, a matte paper.

Now you're free to make adjustments to brightness, contrast and/or saturation until this proof copy more closely resembles your original image. And because your changes are applied to a VC, your original image remains unaltered. Note that if you attempt to make edits in soft proofing mode without first creating a VC, Lightroom will prompt you to create one.

By making adjustments to the Basic panel controls, I was able to obtain a closer print-to-screen match than what we saw in the previous set of images. In cases like this one, where a highly saturated image is being printed on a matte paper with pigment inks (a combination with a significantly reduced color gamut), it is often impossible to get an exact match in hue, saturation or contrast. What soft proofing allows you to do is get the print output as close as you can before making a physical print.

Although not soft proofing per se, in Lightroom 4's Print module you can adjust both brightness and contrast of the print output without altering your catalogued image. There is no visual preview of the adjustments so getting them right will require a fair bit of trial and error. If you constantly complain of prints that are too dark (or light), however, and are intimidated by the soft proofing workflow described above, this offers a quick way to adjust your print output without affecting your catalogued image.

Comments

All good so far but still no multi user option. Capture is with the Capture Pilot a big step ahead of the game. All they need to do is port that little piece of software for a mac or pc and you can properly edit a shoot while another digital operator is working on it.At the moment i'm using both programs depending on the job but the day phase one comes out with this solution it sadly is bye bye lightroom.

"support for Windows XP has been dropped" thats that for me then. Stupid Adobe, i bet there are still million people who use XP. My wife works at school and all the school's computers have XP ... what does that tell you Adobe?

If you still use XP, that says more about you than about Adobe. Also, there is no reason you can't keep using LR3. It didn't suddenly become a terrible program just because there is a new version out...

Windows XP is the second most widely used operating system in the world. There are still millions of users out there who don't find it necessary or want to upgrade to Windows 7. That was very short-sighted of Adobe to not support XP.

It tells me that the schools need to upgrade their machines soon. Windows XP is over 10 years old, hasn't been sold in retail for 4 years, hasn't been option on prebuilt PCs for almost 2 years, and Microsoft has been phasing Windows XP into EOL over the past few years. Support for XP was supposed to stop all together about 2 years ago but Microsoft decided to extend the limited "Extended Support" out to 2014 due to the large user base and demand. Essentially, everyone has had at least a 2 years notice.

If Adobe continued to offer support for every past operating system out there, then there would be no progress with the application. It would bloat, performance increases would be minimal, etc. all for the sake of expanded compatibility.

As Artistico said, you can continue to use LR3. It still works.

Or with LR4 being cheaper now, you could by a copy of Windows 7 64-bit and an upgrade of LR4 for the same price or less than a full version of LR3 would have cost when it first came out.

So somehow magically schools and corps will have the money to upgrade their Windows with all the required support headaches, just because VirtualaMirage says the should? Me, I'd rather they spend money on jobs and minimize further levies.

No, the smart idea is just don't upgrade lightroom....or buy it at all.

"...it isn't critical for what we do." Exactly. To run my large format printer RIP, I use Windows XP and Onyx Poster Shop. For email, accounting and calendar and basic photoshop work, I use a G5 with Mac OS10.4. For downloading, sorting and editing 2000 or so images after an assignment, I use the latest and the greatest.Task appropriate tools are one of the keys to smooth workflow and high quality product. LR just got a heck of a lot better, and if that requires a new computer, then that's the price of quality.

I work in IT with well over 1,000 servers in my environment with 50x that in client machines that are still on XP that will be upgraded to 7 in the next year.

My statement wasn't meant to be crude, it's just a fact. Support for XP is going away. When support ends, you're screwed.

Us techs can't create our own patches for the OS. Sometimes, we need to call MS for support. In an environment where IA is breathing down our necks for increased security, this is not an option.

Yes, XP has one of the largest user bases. Why is that? Is it superior to all other OS's out there? No. Is it more secure? Nope. Is it because of how long it has been out with no refresh and how easy it was to pirate? Ding, ding...I think we have a winner.

MS would not be doing itself any favors by continuing support of XP. The longer XP is supported, the larger the user base will get. That makes it harder to innovate and convince other to upgrade to a superior, more secure product.

Why does it matter if your schools or corporate environment are still using XP? Do they need Lightroom 4 on all their PCs as well? And if so, why would the need for a newer version of Lightroom outweigh the need to upgrade their OS, where the cost between the two would essentially be about the same?

I've never seen a school or corporate environment have such a desire for a product that they need on all their machines where their existing hardware doesn't support it. If so, then their priorities are out of order. Usually, they will have a few dedicated machines that are capable for this tasking, especially for editing.

If XP is still suiting their needs, great. There are still several products out there that run fine on XP. They are just going to find that more and more software developers will be doing the same thing soon and fewer and fewer new programs will be supported on the antiquated OS. Just be aware support is ending soon.

Does this thing have a capability to display focus point in RAW file same as Digital Photo Professional does for RAW files created from Canon camera ? It is important and comes handy when editing to see what was point of focus.

No. The focus point display is a subset of Canon's proprietary marker notes. They do not allow 3rd party raw convter access to features like this. But keep in mind converting to dng does not delete this info. It just cannot use it.

Aperture interprets Maker Notes and incorporates the data into various features, for example it can display the Canon Focus Points and it can interpret the DR200% & DR400% in Fuji X100 raws and then expose them correctly. Perhaps taking a little longer for more thorough support has its benefits.

Undocumented marker notes are not supported by Adobe. Canon does not provide the info to 3rd party converters. Some converters, as others have mentioned will indeed use this data. Adobe's policy has been to simply pass along markernotes when converting to dng but otherwise ignore it.

A good read that's informative. I'm not sure you could call it a review though. "Walk Through" would be more apt IMO it's a very different entity to the kind of rigorous testing that you see in the camera reviews.

Wasn't really talking about length. More that it's a demonstration rather than a critique of strengths and weaknesses. The tone was these are the improvements from LR3. Which is fine, I enjoyed reading it, but I don't see how you could call it a review is all.

I know you do different reviews. I've explained quite clearly why this isn't a review. I enjoyed it though, thank you for writing it.

EDIT: just so you know what I mean a review would have covered things like this question from tesch posted above.

"Was there a huge performance upgrade from the beta? My beta would have long pauses between slider changes which was really annoying. There were many complaints about this from other people and the response was "it's a beta and this will be corrected". So my queation is, was it?"

Stuff like that is needed in a review. i.e. How much power you need to run it effectively? Does is offer enough potential image quality improvement to be worthwhile as an upgrade (if you don't need the bells and whistles)? Where does it stack up against other manufacturers' products? etc.

I found this review useful and highly readable. Thanks, Amadou and DPReview.

One thing wasn't perfectly clear to me. The section on the RGB Point Curves feature shows an example with two points added to each curve (plus the endpoints). Can more than two points be added? And can the endpoints be moved?

Unable to get access from Australia at this stage. Australian web site passes you to US website which then complains that you should login to the Asutralian store! Sadly this is not the first time I have problems with the Adobe sites. To add insult to injury I anticipate that the upgrade price in Australia will be much higher than the US price.

Frankly, while I have used LR3 as a baseline I am seriously considering washing my hands with Adobe products and looking elsewhere.

Nikon users - It doesn't really matter isn't it??still as long as Adobe uses its own algorithm rather than the official Nikon one to convert RAW files, photos will always convert much better (in terms of IQ) in NX2 regardless the nice features of Lightroom, I'm using D7000 and the difference is so huge that it's really a no briner but to use NX2 as much as I hate the workflow and the poor photo management capabilities.

I suggest to all Nikon users to just try and open a RAW image in NX2 and in Lightroom - you'll see what I mean, not mentioning the results of pushing the histogram...

Apple Aperture renders Nikon files very nicely and quickly. If you look at the Automator API for Aperture, you will also see that it has some Nikon specific functions, which tells me that they went out of their way to accommodate Nikon RAW files. If you're on a Mac, give it a try. I think you will like how your photos look.

And have they addressed any of its major UI failings present since its first incarnation? No. The incredibly wasteful use of screen space, the ludicrously unhelpful access to controls etc. Typical Adobe release, add things but don't fix. Such a shame. The software boys certainly know what they're doing but the designers screw it up.

What do you like so much about it? I find Lightroom cluttered with too many shades of gray and black, and too many boxes and lines and strange GUI elements. Plus the way that file management and image adjustments are split into different modes gets in my way (I often find that I want to add a keyword when I'm in Develop).

Detected new marvelous feature, when I want to copy a book it takes (50 pages) 5 minutes to shoot RAW-s from it, then little tone curve adjustment and export pdf directly from book module and then straight away to iPad. This workflow is fast to save some old paper books and saves time and is green.

I have consistently used beta versions of Lightroom, but until now, would not buy due to its failure to make the interface easily useable. I found Aperture could reduce shadow noise as it allowed the user to lower the black point to -5 which opens up the shadows and reduces noise in a direct way- a way that Lightroom did not.

The new controls at last allow you to do this, and you will find that additionally the dynamic range of a flat image (aren't they all?!) can significantly improved as the article describes.

The one lack is SOME necessary lens correction modules for the many OLDER lenses we all have and use, but which Canon, for example, have removed corrections for from DPP.

There are a lot of these lenses-24-85 f3.5-4.5mm USM Canon for example (use 24-120 f4 Nikkor profile), and excellent 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 old AF EOS lens. I'm sure others can name lots more.

But Aperture hasn't ANY, and its colour profiles give innacurate results in Windows.

I think he is referring to pro photo. The pro photo colorspace is not rendered properly in windows. I have also had problems printing with windows drivers and pro photo. It just doesn't like it. I always switch to sRGB which has unfortunately less gamut.

Not compatible with Lightroom 3 ? So I can't load my existing catalogues and even if I re-import the photos to a new catalogue they will appear different and require reprocessing. I think forward compatibility is an essential feature. They should have kept all the old processing routines so that the program could detect old files and show the images correctly.

Thanks, thats good to a point but if I used controls that are no longer available then I assume my photos look different in version 4 to they did when I processed them in V3. I don't want to have to check every image when I want to re-export at a differeent resolution and have a customer complain it doesn't match the sample. So I would have to keep separate V3 and V4 catalogs and lose the ability to search across them or reprocess every image, update samples, website etc. Much more likely to stay with V3.

Dave, to get the results you want, all you have to do is refrain from updating your photos to PV2012. LR 4 will then behave exactly as LR 3 in the Develop module. And if you update a photo by accident you can always undo.

Lens profile corrections (with a large library of lense profiles) has been available in LR since Version 2 I believe. It corrects distortion and vignetting, I'm unsure if it also tries to correct CA but I'd think so.

Even if a specific lens doesn't have a profile in Lightroom, it's easy to create your own. Profiles are only good to a point anyway, since not every copy of every lens needs to be corrected in exactly the same way.

For years I was an exclusive ACR user (having Photoshop already) and shared your sentiment. But I was convinced to give it another try this year and realized the program has many significant advantages over plain ACR. I will not go back.

I decided to bite the bullet and learn LR, especially since the Beta was a free download. With the help of some internet tutorials I found it quite quick to master and very intuitive. I have processed well over 2000 photo's with it and to say I'm impressed is an understatement. The ease in which I'm able to get fantastic results from RAW files is brilliant, and I know the newspaper I shoot for appreciates the huge step up in the image quality of the sport photo's I now submit to them! The seamless integration with Facebook and flickr is very welcome as well. The soft proofing feature is worth the price of admission alone and the prints I get from it are far superior to anything I've used before.I'm definitely buying this!!!

LR is Fantastic, I just love it. I have never had problems with the catalogs after the first few days and getting to understand how it works. Can't wait for LR4, but don't have time to play with the Beta.

Photoshop, and Lr, are comparable. I'm aware Lr attempts to do other things (Photoshop, or Gimp can do more), but these things are superfluous, and fully covered in other programs (tagging, file management, face recognition, and exporting, for examples); that are not more difficult to utilize, in practice. My point was, to get real work done, without all the extra poo, get The Gimp, and all it's free brothers. If you're into Raw, for example, know that ufraw is more of a universal developer, and includes a bunch of settings you may not even need to tweak, after your one-time (per camera) color profile setup. It's worth the effort, in the end. The look of it, is completely dependent on the theme you choose, and so irrelevant. You can make it look like Lr, if you wish. The menu arrangement, is different. So what? Everything has a purpose, and isn't the point, maximizing your photos? There's nothing you can't do, with open software, so don't fall for these "discounted" pricing tricks.

You seem to have an axe to grind. Some people prefer using commercially developed and company supported software, and gain real benefits from doing so.

I've used Gimp, (and GimpShop) and I prefer Corel PhotoPaint or PSP Pro Photo or PhotoShop Express. I develop open source software, but it isn't always the best solution.

I find LightRoom an excellent program for the features it bundles together, and the new pricing makes it an easier choice for lots of users who would benefit from a single program, common design solution.

The first part of your question. It will always look darker than a glowing screen. However, you can predict the final result better if you use a darker profiling target for the monitor. Also make sure you have sufficient amount of light of the correct kind when viewing the prints. And yes, it is normal that the prints have less contrast than a computer monitor.

Great review, looks useful. Does anyone know if Lightroom offers relative adjustments for a series of images? Ie Can i ask it to increase all images by 1 stop regardless of starting exposure value? cheers

With LR3, you can save presets. So, for instance, you could edit one image to have a 1.0 exposure, save that as a "1 Stop" preset, then apply that to multiple-selected images in your Library. Hopefully this function still remains in LR4!

Thank you for a precise ,concise presentation of Lightroom Beta.It is most helpful as I try to sort out if it pays to use it as a "Stand Alone" program for developing files rather than as a catalogue -storage medium.I use Aperture 3 for storage but have lately been reviewing some of my latest editions a more and more feel that the skin tones are too "Plasticy".Any thoughts.Best Alan New Mexico USA where dry heat is given new meanings.

An excellent view of what LR4 has to offer. I've been using it for a few days now and have had very good results so far. After reading this, I have even a better understanding of some of the new controls and look forward to taking things a step further.Thanks for the information and insight.

I've probably missed this on your great review, but in the Slideshow module, is it now possible to EASILY add more than one piece of music to a show? In L3 you could only have one track to go with your photos. Has this changed?

Being able to adjust the video files so easily is a huge boon. Nowadays, I might want to capture the scene with a piece of 1080p video, which might suffer as much as my photos from poor levels or too cool a white balance. Now without too much effort they can be fixed.

Hopefully at some point, even if it is slow, we have the option of deploying the whole collection of develop tools to video, including noise reduction and camera profiles.

The LR3 Brightness was very useful for me. I have used Brightness/Exposure to keep highlights and brighten the mid-tones. Transferring the images processes as 2010 to 2012 may dramatically change my images end results. How I can brighten mid-tones without Brightness adjustment? :-(

Also, I do agree with zeroing the defaults values. I always set Brightness, Contrast and Black lever to zeros at the very beginning. The set Brightness=50%, Contrast=25% and Black lever 5% is equivalent to +1EV. The opened image would be always shown overexposed when opened with 50-25-5.

The added soft-proofing with Before and After is great!

Looking forward to upgrade!LeoPS Thank you for the update!!! - very helpful!

Now this is a quality article! Thanks, very helpful. Dpreview at its best.

One question, have the noise suppression tools been developed further? I would love a better pattern noise suppression tool. Raw Shooter Essentials used to have it, Adobe bought them, where is the slider these days?

I thought the quality of this article was fantastic, thank you very much. I have been using the trial version of LR 3.5 waiting for 4 to come out before buying, and it is very helpful to see all these updates so clearly examined. Well done!

Back when LR3 was released I put in a feature request for a book module and there was a lot of support for my request from adobe forum members so I am happy that it made it. Also great idea to integrate with Blub but I hope there is a way for 3rd party developers to integrate with MPIX or others as well.

There were many who also asked/requested for a Calendar module as well. I am happy to see the book module (a much needed feature) but disappointed we will not also get a Calendar module. I believe for many a book and Calendar module would have been huge features. Hopefully someone will create a plug-in